Sorry, guys, looks like you're back to living in sin

The BBQ Pit
#1

First off: OH MY GOD NOT ANOTHER GAY MARRIAGE THREAD!! wail, wail, gnashing of teeth. Yeah, suck it up, SDMB.

Now:
News story of the day is that The California Supreme Court voted to nullify the marriages performed by Mayor Newsom in San Francisco.

It should be no surprise to anyone that I’ve never understood the opposition to same-sex marriages, and I don’t even understand the “give it time” attitude. Especially when you get quotes like this one from the first same-sex couple married by Newsom:

How can any human being hear of a couple who’s been together for 50 years wanting to get married, and not think that this is a gross injustice?

Anyone? Please?
And in more local news:
In this thread, we hear a personal side of the story from one of the men who was married in one of those ceremonies. It was made in a community forum, part of which is designed for personal stories and a chance for the Doper community to help each other through tough times.

So JohnBckWLD, why the hell did you have to go in there and piss all over it? No, you weren’t rude; very polite and tactful in fact. But why feel the need to bring it up at all? If you were talking to a heterosexual couple that had just been divorced, would you politely bring up the fact, “You know, when you think about it, you were never supposed to be married in the first place?”

You want to debate it, come here. Otherwise, give Jeeves some goddamn support or get the fuck out of the way.

#2

Cause it’s so icky.

Oh yeah, and God said it was wrong. It’s in the bible. You know, that book Jesus wrote.

#3

Argh. I’m just not cut out to start Pit threads.

I already feel guilty for over-reacting and being unnecessarily harsh to JohnBckWLD. I still don’t think that Jeeves’s thread is the place to have the debate. He was going through his personal reaction to the ruling – trying to make sense of the “no court can take away the love we share” part.

So JohnBckWLD, I don’t think my saying “pissing all over it” and “get the fuck out of the way” were justified.

Still, “restoring the rule of law in California,” is not as noble as the wording makes it sound. It’s an unjust law. Newsom forced the government’s hand to have to come up with a reason why these marriages should not be valid. As far as I can see it, they didn’t come up with anything better than “because that’s the way it is.”

Protestors quoted in that article describe themselves as “defenders of marriage.” How are you defending marriage by telling thousands of people in love that they’re not married?

#4

Before everyone gets his panties in a snitch about this…

This was a very narrow court decision, focused only on whether or not Newsom had the authority to issue SSM licenses. No one with half a brian thought this was going to be upheld. The court will, at some later date, consider this issue of whether SSM is guaranteed bu the state consitution.

#5

Oh, thank goodness. For a second there I thought that was a link, which would be to someplace not-so-good…

#6

Exactly. It seems very clear that Mayor Newsom did overstep his bounds in issuing SSM licenses, and I would agree with the court’s decision. (I know, like anyone cares what I think.) But yes, it is a sad day. I don’t think it went to naught, though, the entire thing caused a lot of conversation, and I hope that at least some people looked at the happy couples in love and realized that gay marriage wasn’t destroying anything.

#7

I came across a fantastic quote on this topic, which I will attempt to paraphrase:

“They keep saying ‘Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years’. That’s not an argument, that’s a temper tantrum”

#8

What Jesus taught was to refrain from moral judgment and to love one another. He taught that neither He nor His Father judges anyone. It is man, not God, who has made religion into politics. The oppression of gays and other minorities is yet another tyranny visited upon us by majority mob rule. I say “us” because this is bad news for all of us. If even one man can be denied his rights, then we are all in danger of losing our rights. Whatever principle entitles a magistrate to deny rights to anyone entitles him to deny them to us all.

#9

John be in the right on this. Quit the knee jerking and wait for the real court battle. It is coming. I feel it is going to be a good one too.

#10

He did??? I thought “His Father” was the ultimate judge of all of us. Is there no hell in your version of Christianity?

#11

In my other thread, I acknowledged that with the basic principles the CASC was working with, they made the correct decision, regarding the authority of Mayor Newsom to issue the marriage licenses. Where I disagree with them, is their disposition of the marriage licenses that were issued. I agree with J. Werdegar Concurring and Dissenting opinion (page 101 of the pdf form of the decision) that they should have declined to rule on the validity of the marriage licenses until they rule on the entire issue. Shoot, just so that the couples who were married don’t have to do it twice. Declaring the marriages void just felt unnescarry to me. Of course, I don’t have an impartial opinion in this, so I am willing to stipulate that the other justices were doing what they thought correct.

As far as JohnBckWLD’s post in my thread, I didn’t particularly care for it, though I had half expected a harsher and more condemnatory post, even here. Not knowing JohnBckWLD’s opinion on same-sex marriage, I am not sure exactly what his sentiments were, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I am to the CASC.

#12

I have half a brian, but in the next cereal box I ended up with half a tim. Now the damn thing doesn’t work.

Who’s got the other half?

#13

Please see this post for a thorough explanation.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5140553&postcount=65

#14

John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Of course that’s contradicted by other statments about judging justly. But, you really can’t build a consistent belief system and believe everything in that book.

#15

Jesus came to save the world from what? Damnation, IIRC. You can’t get damned unless someone is there to damn you. If people are not judged, ie, everyone goes to heaven, then who cares? Who needs religion or the concept of sin? If sin ain’t judgement, I don’t know what is…

#16

Oh and PS: Bricker is a smug little prick, telling people they should be “vocal in their praise” of the ruling invalidating the marriages of loving couples. Especially when he tries to couch it terms of “the will of the people” and avoiding “legislation completely introduced by judges”, fatuously avoiding any notion of whether the law is a valid one in the first place. I’d started to say as much in Great Debates, but could tell I was heading into Pit territory.

Agree or disagree with the court’s ruling, what kind of petty jack-ass goes around praising a ruling that makes people miserable? You can “come down on either side of the fence” and “agree or disagree with this issue” when you’re talking about legislation and the rule of law. There are no two valid sides to bigotry; there’s only right and wrong.

#17

Don’t ask me. I pointed out it was contradicted by other statments in the same book. It’s just a fairy tale to me.

#18

Lib:

I won’t post the entire text of The Last Judgement (Matthew 25:31 - 25:46), but I’m sure you’re familiar with it. Can you explain how that is NOT judging?

#19

I think it would honestly help you to understand my point if you read the linked post first if you haven’t done so, but I’ll answer your question anyway. The passage you cite from Matthew is the parable of the sheep and goats. The linked post will help you to understand that it is we, and not He, who decide whether we are sheep or goats. Even in the parable, when we arrive, we already have selected our garments. We selected them when we selected whether to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and visit those in prison. There is nothing in the passage about sucking penises. Please see the linked post and give it a careful read. I put a lot of time into it precisely for questions like these. Thanks.

#20

But it’s just so much selective quoting + personal interpretation, which is really no different from the “Homos are damned” argument.

Righteousness is in the eye of the beholder.